Skip to main content
1:15 am
their journalist family or mr. rene? >> he passed away this time last year and could not have been more generous and sat down and with me for two, three are interviews cronkite's children were great and all of the relatives of the other five were terrific. >> host: author of assignment to how. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for that great introduction.
1:16 am
i want to thank the seminary co-op for making this possible but especially all of you for being here. i am overwhelmed to see so many people because my main hope is to engage with you i will speak briefly to introduce the book and a general way then focus on one section of banning the of burqa in europe. not long ago europeans prided themselves on the ally in the attitude of religious toleration and understanding. or renew the history of the west was characterized by intense religious animosity and violence including bloody episodes as the crusades, but also the quiet violence of religious domination by europeans from
1:17 am
many parts of the world with anti-semitism and anti-catholicism which a indicated not only germany but other nations as well, you're in the u.s. like to think the dark times were in the past and religious violence was somewhere else. it was primitive but that of christian value but today we have reasons to doubt the self assessment. searching for critical self examination as to try to uncover the fears and suspicions that this figure western democracy. the law took effect in france it is illegal to cover the face of any public space from parks to shops although it does not mention
1:18 am
women, a muslim, a veil or burqa it was introduced as a muslim veil that imprisons women and threatens french by use of dignity and equality. although france is the first country to enact a full day and similar restrictions are being considered oliver europe as some have other types of restrictions. the belgian chamber of representatives voted forays similar ban on the that it is expected to be challenged. spain, 2010. the assembly their league rejected the pay and of zepa burqa in all public places and similar laws are in progress in italy. in switzerland after a
1:19 am
popular referendum to banda construction of minarets despite the fact very few mosques in switzerland had them there only for in the whole country of 150 mosques. and it is clearly symbolic with the architectural issue. july 2011 tear struck northern europe. murdering approximately 76 people on the government buildings and shooting a young representatives of the labor party who gathered for a youth camp. confessing to a crime but claimed he is not the fault, released on the day of the attack released a 1500 page manifesto that he
1:20 am
aligned a theory based on his actions that you must fight against the oscar judges solmization. the legal side so far with religious centers to express the conscientious commitment no bands of the headscarf or burqa are proposed but there is numerous attends to force up the mosque like here or proposals to bid the application of sharia law. and there has been horrific violence. the attack left several -- several people dead.
1:21 am
my book argues says my a philosophy helps us to with this time of suspicion. with these principles based on a sound argument deriving from the idea of human dignity. here i studied the history of religious liberty including with joe-- roger williams and look at equal respect of conscience and how that imposes have led to the tradition that government may not substantially burden the free exercise of religion without it extremely wait of public interest. and i defend those ideas.
1:22 am
the second prong of my approach is for consistency and a self examination in our approach to the religion of other people. many policies lack the basic virtue to have a coherent and consistent policy across similar cases. many are flawed in a deeper way people act in ways to give there group special privileges. so we will see that but the third prong i argue even with good principles and consisting reasoning we still need something more. active, a curious imagination learned about
1:23 am
the lives of others and coming to see how the world looks from other points of view i give works of literature from both adults come to children to promote the a understanding. i use the history of prejudice as a historical case that is good to think about. for the 19th century antisemitism it has the unfortunate features and the obvious wrongness may guide us as we think of issues that are too close to be seen with a clarity deserved. but now with second prong and principled consistency. talking about the burqa but it can be adapted.
1:24 am
but the five most prominent arguments are made in a consistently to favor majority practices. they are not compatible for religious liberty of fall and not compatible with the deeper underlying idea of equal respect from which that springs. of cases of turning the christian tradition to fail to appreciate what is it your own data show night the presence of other committees cannot a college ubiquity of the majority culture. so to treat all citizens ethical respect, a first and
1:25 am
argument from security that it requires people to show their face. a second closely related argument that is called the argument of transparency that reciprocity between businesses is impeded by covering the face. what is wrong is they are applied totally inconsistent a. gets very cold in chicago. we walk on the streets with the hat pulled down with a scarf over the nose and mouth and sunglasses to keep out the wind. problem with security your transparency nor are we forbidden to go in the
1:26 am
building. also surgeons, a dentist, american football players, skiers, who typically you where the full face covering was only slits for the eyes. some are more covered the live in the era of terrorism and is legitimate to suspect the women who wear the tee three. if i was a terrorist and not stupid the last thing i would do would be where a burqa to not attract suspicious attention. [laughter] i think i would dress with the devour long coat and an
1:27 am
extract and o large glasses and a shawl wrapped all around the face. i have ever been asked to remove the close at a department store, a boutique, a public building were big. in the summer and would wear a big floppy hat and carry a big hand bag to signal consumption. that is what a smart terrorist would do. we need to worry about them. what to do about the threat of clothing? airline security does a lot with pat downs, by the imaging and the scanner and if done consistently, it is so right. but those to get awful manual pat down and who is
1:28 am
clearly trained to be courteous and respectful. private stores to feel the clothing is a threat could institute a nondiscriminatory rule. they could even have a body scanner at the door. but they don't but with the video demonstration they say that burqa has a security issue. but a reasonable demand would be a muslim woman having a full face federal on her driver's license with suitable for of -- i don't think the requirement is incompatible with the quote
1:29 am
liberty. we also know the face is a bad identifier. i recognition in fingerprint technologies have already replaced them. win broad the available and have spread we could do away with a photo which of what remains of the first argument. we need a little something more to focus on transparency. of the already replied to the many context that we do make contact with other citizens while they face and remain covered. the longstanding traditions say the eyes are the windows of the schoolhouse. contact is made to me more
1:30 am
theorize then nose or mouth. once during a construction project in my office i had to cover everything except my eyes but very soon they're asking me how to get a mask. my personality did not feel stifled nor did they feel they cannot access my individuality. a further point* is people have difficulty talking to people who look god and they blame that on them rather than oneself. people with facials disabilities a hugely stigmatized mental and physical with disabilities are often excluded from conversation. children used to be hidden
1:31 am
away from normal children not integrated into mainstream classrooms that normal children found it difficult to interact with them. we still have difficulty we had our first do it with major disabilities had a wheelchair and the dog to guide her with a breathing tube. people did not talk and thought she must be stupid. that is common then they realized she was a start and also in a very gifted actress. and now in structures -- instructors are where they should not exclude people from conversation just because they are disturbing to them even if they have tourettes syndrome which
1:32 am
could be disturbing. if they find a hard to talk to the student she will try to do her job better. and prominently with the case of my student who is legally blind a third argument prominent today is this burqa is a symbol of male domination to symbolize the objectification of women to encourage people to think of and treat women as the interchangeable object for their use. we should save the people who make it don't know much about is long but the more glaring flaw is modern societies have male
1:33 am
supremacy image treating women as the sex object. hard-core pornographers, a tight jeans come revealing clothing, all of these from -- products teach women to be objects and women are taught to be paid in this way hand that robs them of individuality and reduces them to a commodity and i have written several articles myself the latest was pornographic abuse on the internet. what about plastic surgery? every time i undress in the locker room of my aid jim i
1:34 am
see women who have the scars of breast implants and tummy tucks some out of personal choice but i think a lot are by the pressure of the gender culture to conform to the female beauty purpose of the proposal would ban all practices concerning which it was on women it would be consistent although a few feminists would have such a sweeping on the experts but proponents do not propose to ban these practices but they strongly object to even the radical feminist from violent pornography and participate.
1:35 am
once again opponents are assistant to b. j. fear of the discriminatory and none were the of the egalitarian democracy. then hold the position of the ministry of feminism a point* made by a joint -- joan scott but only for those who are not likely to understand clearly. the way to deal with sexism in this case, is by persuasion, example, not by liberty. of course, things that of the vote could be disapproved. i ask unequaled respect for persons calls for equal research of liberty. but not equal personal approval, many things are legal but others consider
1:36 am
deplorable. instability and narcissism. been a society based data of respect one person with a secular view will agree to disapprove and religion itself to express the disapproval. but such a person not to think about consistency and she should try to understand and when should hesitate before offering their view to other people's lives. >> the fourth argument holds the only wear it to because
1:37 am
they are coerced. is typically made but we should apply of course, all forms of violent coercion are already illegal do they really believe domestic violence is only a muslim problem? if they do there and our right. to the u.s. bureau of justice statistics into the partner violence made a 20% of non fatal violent crime in 2001. another survey cited reports 52 percent of the surveyed women said there were physically assaulted by the adult caretaker as a child or any type of perpetrator.
1:38 am
there is no evidence there is a per one negative disproportionate amount but it given the document to association one that might predict to have less of it but it was given a statistically. the u.s. supreme pork has held nude dancing is in indiana. but it could be banned with is contingent to be with crime including crimes against women. but it is not clear with our friends on the seventh
1:39 am
circuit wear richard poser said it is a violation of the first amendment and that they just were not there and that somehow the presence would change all that. justice souter did not have much experience in this area. [laughter] but college fraternities are strongly associated with violence against women. we know that and some make all or some move off campus as a result. >> public universities are entitled to limit activities to help them a total government ban, of view
1:40 am
their places people go it to be the star restriction. won fame reid have but banning alcohol was motivated in the constitution for that reason. why should lot of viding people suffered with the crimes of the user's? there was a total disaster politically and they increased crime but even during prohibition with the use of the alcohol got the exemption. just like federal law to day polls the correct drinking age and those that could not wear it for religious
1:41 am
reasons. anyone who must be considering to ban it must weigh the others. >> surely they do not have much choice it is likely to resist. with this question opens another topic. there is nothing, and with the modern family so you most -- commercial pressure issues to get into the right college, wearing appropriate clothes, take a shower and so on. i should say my own father who was a racist told me she
1:42 am
could disinherit me if i ate appeared in public in a group with any member was african-american. emotional blackmail where should government step in? where physical and sexual abuse is going on. it is much tougher to talk about the emotional core version. of as bad as they were that would not be right for government to remove custody wear religious mandates are used to either constitute a grocer asked as children who cannot have a life-saving blood transfusion or to
1:43 am
impair major bodily functioning. female genital mutilation should be legal if it interferes with pleasure or other functions. christian science believes the children should not be taken into the doctor when they're ill is reported to successfully so that has led to an abuse. >> what is going on? is there a substantial burden so otherwise does it justify the invitation? burqa but since it is not irreversible and does not impair other bodily functions.
1:44 am
if it is physical or sexual violence then it should be legally punished. of the rise it is in the same category of other requirements that has the unpleasant to parents put on their children. some appear to violate laws against child safety that is when yale professor admitted in her book with tiger mother she forced her daughter to stand outside in the cold without supper and also at the piano without faster access because she did not master a difficult passage of piano work was a child abuse and one wondered why the police were not on her doorstep but the answer was obvious. but that is the sort of thing to intervene. similar tactics could be used to get the girl to wear
1:45 am
burqa it is more emotional blackmail like my father. parents are blameworthy but to bring in the police is considered to be too much legal intervention. societies are entitled to all female children have a decent education and employment opportunities to give exit options the people think when in only wear it with them create ample opportunities for them. but there is a reasonable point* to be made. when turkey banned the veil there was a reason because
1:46 am
women who did not wear it were subjected to harassment. so they had the choice not to have the veil as long as women did not have the choice. you may think of this as a burden but it does not appear to be justified today but not that the u.s. where women dress as they please one thing they need to face squarely in some people choose lives with authority and constraint given most european nations and germany just dropped its law these
1:47 am
countries can be grateful for the structure of life runs relatively strong in society. and most suggest such choices should be banned. and to install others to find the relative difference. many people believe something like this but not to make the judgment about strangers. hearing the argument 53 is an unhealthy because it is hot and uncomfortable the first time i heard the argument i was in barcelona i was very uncomfortable because the sun is like a weapon.
1:48 am
a woman who was burned to a crisp, i was worried, she made the point* that the burqa is unhealthy and it seems so paradoxical. clothing that covers the body could be healthy or unhealthy depending on the fabric. as people now in india full body covering made of cotton is a good choice it breathes easily and keeps the dust and some of the sun off of the skin. with typical spanish three u.s. female dress would need to meet with the dermatologist approval. i a now have to get checked by a dermatologist every few months but so to ban all on
1:49 am
health the clothing we have to begin with the high heel and platform shoes. as delicious as they are. but they're associated with the normal i am and typical exports but in general the state is right to limit regulatory interventions into clothing making sure what is sold to children is flameproof and other forbade of health risks. but women are encouraged to wear clothing that could create a health risk. also of five arguments are discriminatory.
1:50 am
you don't need to reach the delicate area if you get special accommodation with the society people liberty. philosophical principles. >> diatribe to give you a flavor with the quality in the u.s. and europe but then what i say is even if they hire the right. >> bet the narcissism is so acute. you can see it to that we will meet that it leads us to think of others as human
1:51 am
beings whose lives are curious as fortunately the university of chicago. the climate of fear and suspicion against muslims and friends to the rail that commitment but if we articulate ph.d. is clearly, this may help us with these developments. thank you. [applause] i will call on people until they cut us off. please come to the microphone.
1:52 am
please say to you are or where program you are in. >> after that we do the book signing. if you have to leave and want a book take it to my secretary. >> one thing that disturbs me a young girl who wants to wear the covering they are forced they cannot go to a normal school so they are deprived of the education that other children get that would be a problem finding
1:53 am
jobs in the future or b =. >> that is very important. that shows the policy is counterproductive. if they wanted to assimilation then of course, that is true. i did not talk about the school's his office of the but it is the clear case because they ban the yarmulkes for jews, headscarf for muslims and nothing for christians. they say large christian crosses and nobody is required to wear that. it is just the appearance. france is a special case that they take a principled
1:54 am
stand that the public space should not have religion in it. that should let us take a few extra steps. man is inconsistent that but to see it as inconsistent you have to read but i think privilege is not a religion over religion but they said we will find all of the organization's except the religious one. that was overturned why should religions. so i prefer that to.
1:55 am
but if you want to set the with me if you read the law you find out if but what they want to get that they give them everything except masquerade traditional money but there are reasons that we need to have been someplace except for the burqa of course. that is inconsistent but the backdrop of the idea we will decide the french way to do things and he then if they have ideas ascots book they
1:56 am
will not get that but the opposite results. >>. >> her for early chicago used to have an ordinance against appearing in public with the mask but that was directed at the ku klux klan klan but i am interested in polygamy teasing reynolds vs. u.s. been a hit among the mormons was a good law and will ever be overturned? >> fact is an interesting issue. in chicago you also could not appear in public if you are ugly. [laughter] a former colleague with major neurological disability is found he could
1:57 am
not walk down the street. if a religion came forward today as was the case with the church of latter day saints in the 1870's and he will let them know no substantial burden but it should have been. now i think sex equality if it was limited to men absolutely. there is a case where the university lost their tax exemption so similarly they could not collaborate but i practice of polyandry the
1:58 am
administratively is impossible because it creates sony layers of families but the administrative difficulty has to be really extreme there is one case that i know of where native american family refuses to give their number a social security number. but they said that is so fundamental comintern's out she was given one anyway. but you have to go out far on a limb. reynolds's the case where a polygamous may and lhere a
1:59 am
polygamous may and lost but it was not applied to the state law yet. they thought they would win it was just terrible bigotry there is a scholar who wrote that mormons were african waffle of racial tropes you see the description is circulated at that time that all these things combined to have squared jaws then they
2:00 am
said the comical thing that polygamy is patriarchal. with think of a monogamous marriage? the only difference with utah and the west's lead in the polygamist mayors they could vote because they had the vote in the territory but on the lack of cruelty of the saints that were present at that time they did not bother to mention. but today there would be a strong interest to protect gendered the quality. but if there were a religion , it has to be bonafide. there has to be acclaimed especially in the drug area.
2:01 am
. .
2:02 am
2:03 am
2:04 am
2:05 am
2:06 am
2:07 am
2:08 am
2:09 am
2:10 am
2:11 am
2:12 am
2:13 am
2:14 am
2:15 am
2:16 am
2:17 am
2:18 am
2:19 am
2:20 am
2:21 am
2:22 am
2:23 am
2:24 am
2:25 am
2:26 am
2:27 am
2:28 am
2:29 am

Book TV
CSPAN January 13, 2013 1:15am-2:30am EST

Martha Nussbaum Education. (2012) 'The New Religious Intolerance Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age.'

TOPIC FREQUENCY U.s. 6, Burqa 6, Chicago 4, Us 3, Europe 3, Narcissism 2, Switzerland 2, Souter 1, Solmization 1, Springs 1, Joan Scott 1, Banda 1, Roger Williams 1, B. J. 1, Rene 1, Ku 1, Cronkite 1, Oliver 1, Northern Europe 1, Indiana 1
Network CSPAN
Duration 01:15:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 91 (627 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 1/13/2013